When you vote for a presidential candidate, you're voting for electors pledged to that party's ticket, not for the candidate him(her)self. Then how, in 2000, Democrats were said to be enticing Bush electors to cross over and vote for Gore?
Posted on 09/13/2004 12:27:52 PM PDT by ken5050
As many of you know, I have over the past four years occasionally chronicled the Clintons, from the perspective of what one hears and observes from Beautiful Downtown Chappaqua. Many Freepers have told me how much they enjoy my commentaries. I've ignored the rumors, the innuendos, the "tin-foil hat" theories. Indeed, there are many more very interesting details that I have deliberately chosen NOT to share with all of you. What I'm going to discuss now is admitted speculation on my part, but based upon a few conversations I've had in the last few days..and you'll have to trust my instincts on my sources..OK..here goes..
If she goes in as a goodwill substitute, she isn't really running, so a loss is not as harmful.
Intraparty issues are always going to be there. CLintons can, right now, call all the shots. Smarter people than you and me are thinking about all the angles and possibilities, you can bet that.
ah - a late switch would be unprecedented and highly risky. there would be a high probability of a PR backlash, not to mention the damage to the nation's trust in the system. That would tar hillary and the dems forever - it could lead to the demise of the entire party! (not that I'd mind, but she ain't that shortsighted)
All she has to do is bide her time and it will all be handed to her. If you could be certain of a million dollars in four years woul dyou risk losing it and more because of impatience? Or would it be wiser to simply wait and plan?
we need to get real on this and stop wasting our breaths on lunacy. no democrat is going to purposely endanger the party for personal gain - especially when personal gain will come to them anyway.
Agreed.
...Not to mention I'd have to change my tagline......
I can see the possibility of this .. but with 2 exceptions .. #4 - Nader will not support Hillary. And .. a lot of people who HATE Hillary would switch to Nader.
The other issue I have is that the reaction from the Reagan democrats would be substantially negative toward Hillary. Along with that would be people who seldom vote at all entering the fray just to keep Hillary (and Bill) out of the WH.
You could be right that this would not necessarily be bad for her and would place her at the top of the party for 2008, but I don't see dems that support her in that strong of a position in 2008. I see just the opposite.
Why I think it could be bad for her:
People have recently been reminded of the Clinton cabal - Carville, Davis, Blumenthal, Shrum, etc. These people are not a GOOD reminder of the Clinton presidency.
The only issue not mentioned is the DEAN PEOPLE. If Hillary attempts to take over the campaign, it could cause a distinct split between the Deaniacs and Hillary.
With those 2 issues, Hillary could be devastated in the election .. and although she could plead lack of time as a scapegoat, I believe there will be lots of dems/people who will feel America has really dodged a bullet. If the loss is sufficient, I don't believe Hillary would stand a very good chance in 2008. If Hillary wants some kind of guarantee, 2008 is not it.
Not a chance--at least the part about the beast actually winning. Please check out any number of my prior posts in which I explain my views as to why HRC will never be elected President.
Like?
1. I personally think that Hillary! is saving Bill for the sympathy vote in 2008 - vote for the poor widow...
2. You have issues of money, ballots, etc. If Hillary! isn't the candidate by a certain date, she doesn't appear on the ballot. Didn't they have to pass a special law in Michigan to get President Bush on the ballot because the Republican Convention was held so late? Also, does Hillary! get JF'nK's matching funds? What other money can she lay her hands on?
Replacing Kerry involves lots of weird issues I think.
I would agree, except that you now have to wonder if New Jersey was the trial run for Democrats, in regards to the viability of the "bait and switch" candidate.
(I'm staring at my tinfoil hat very hard right now)
Don't you have to register in the various states as a presidential candidate? I mean isn't there a cut off date for that?
Secondly, what about the federal campaign money given to Kerry already, what happens to that? And how is Hilary going to get any money?
I hope she does run. It might help a few of the senate races but Bush can blast her record easier than he can Kerry's.
Lastly, what kind of loyalty do you see other dems giving her.
No, it won't happen. What I thought would happen was that Dean was going to run on a third party ticket. He didn't. I think he's the dark horse candidate for 2008, and I think he could beat Hillary.
nick
John Kerry believes that he has a birthright, like Gore, to be President. He has already proven that he will lie it's a matter of time before he hits the cheating and stealing and steal to get into the White House. If he and his campaign will create evidence to butress their faltering campaign, dirty tricks of several orders of magnitude worse by Hillary will be necessary to remove Kerry from the ballot.
When you vote for a presidential candidate, you're voting for electors pledged to that party's ticket, not for the candidate him(her)self. Then how, in 2000, Democrats were said to be enticing Bush electors to cross over and vote for Gore?
#3 Supposedly Alix (sp?) is John Kerry's 'intern problem' but denied it.
Hillary Clinton changes positions more often than a Nevada prostitute???
baby's got back..
Ping
There is "honor" in withdrawing when caught in scandle. If Kerry is tarred with Memogate, the public would not be upset if he withdrew.
The practical problem is keeping that taint from reaching the entire DEM party. So yes, there is HUGE PR backlash in that scenario.
Another scenario has the candidate withdraw for a reason other than scandle. Pulling a Toricelli (withdraw just becuse your polls look like sh!t) would not fly. A health reason, if believed, would.
Anyway, the general point I wanted to add to the thread was the legal aspects, that a switch is legal, and easy. It would be unsettling to the public, because the public is ignorant of presidential election law.
"You forgot a couple of very important things here.
1. Hillary has a 100 million dollar war chest.
2. Teresa went to the hospital for a belly ache and in addition she has been off the campaign trail.
3. Kerry has not given up his Senate seat.
4. Kerry has not given any interviews.
It looks like the Kerry campaign might play a Teresa is ill therefore I am leaving the campaign to be with her.
Hillary steps in, Kerry gets the Secretary of State job should HIllary win.
And we wondered if the Torrecelli gambit meant anything."
Hillary promised her constituents that she would finish her term in the senate. She owes nothing to Kerry. In fact, I agree with Dick Morris, that the Clintons would love to see the Kerry wing of Dem party crash and burn. It is in her best interest for her to campaign to the end for Kerry and that he loses big.
nick
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.